In Case No. 2002-0243, Petition of Senator Clifton Below & a., the court on
May 30, 2002, issued the following order:

The court has concluded that it is necessary to appoint a neutral, technical advisor to
assist the court in this case. A technical advisor will provide assistance to the court in
understanding and utilizing relevant technology and, thus, enable the court to fulfill, on
an expedited basis, its constitutional responsibility to establish a reapportionment plan
for the Senate.

The court proposes to issue an order appointing Mr. Bobby Bowers, Director of the South
Carolina Budget and Control Board Office of Research and Statistics, as its technical
advisor in this case. Mr. Bowers has served in the capacity as a technical advisor to the
United States District Court for South Carolina in redistricting litigation and has
extensive experience in this area. SeeColleton County Council, et al. v. Glenn
F. McConnell, et al., No. 01-3581-10 (D.S.C. Mar. 20, 2002); Burton v. Sheheen,
793 F. Supp. 1329, 1339 (D.S.C. 1992), vacatedsubnom., Statewide
Reapportionment Advisory Committee v. Theodore, 508 U.S. 968 (1993). Mr. Bowers
business address is Suite 425, Rembert C. Dennis Building, 1000 Assembly Street, Columbia,
South Carolina 29201. A copy of Mr. Bowers curriculum vitae is attached to this
order.

In his capacity as technical advisor, Mr. Bowers may be called upon to assist the court
in educating itself in the technical language of redistricting and mapping and in the
technology employed by the parties and their technical experts; to act as a liaison, if
necessary, between the court and the parties technical experts to achieve an
acceptable computer format; and to assist the court in understanding and analyzing the
proposed redistricting plans which are expected to be submitted by the parties. Mr. Bowers
will advise the court incamera, as requested, concerning any technical
matters. To the extent necessary for resolution of this matter, Mr. Bowers may also be
called upon to assist in drawing a redistricting plan for the court, but only in
accordance with the directives of the court.

Courts have inherent authority to appoint technical advisors in rare cases in which
outside technical expertise would be helpful. SeeReilly v. United States,
863 F.2d 149, 156 (1st Cir. 1988). "[S]uch appointments should be the exception and
not the rule, and should be reserved for truly extraordinary cases where the introduction
of outside skills and expertise, not possessed by the judge, will hasten the just
adjudication of a dispute without dislodging the delicate balance of the juristic
role." Id. See generallyState v. Coon, 974 P.2d 386, 395-96
(Alaska 1999) (discussing authority of courts to appoint expert technical advisors).

Throughout this proceeding, Mr. Bowers will act as a sounding board for the
courts assessment of the plans submitted by the parties and will function as a
confidential advisor to the court analogous to the role performed by the courts
judicial clerks. He will be appointed only as a technical advisor to the court pursuant to
the inherent authority of the court, seeReilly, 863 F.2d 149; he will not
be appointed as an expert. Mr. Bowers will not be called upon to testify. He will not act
as a finder of fact, nor will he attempt to advise the court on any matter of law. Neither
he nor staff members acting at his direction may be subjected to cross-examination, and
all confidential computer and other confidential files of Mr. Bowers and his staff
prepared in connection with this case, like those of the court, shall be protected from
demands for production or disclosure.

ACCORDINGLY, THE PARTIES ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the court intends to appoint Mr.
Bobby Bowers, Director of the South Carolina Budget and Control Board Office of Research
and Statistics, as its technical advisor in this case. If any party objects to the
appointment of Mr. Bowers as technical advisor, that party shall file a written objection,
setting forth the specific grounds for the partys objection, on or before June 5,
2002.